Rugers are Ugly Tanks?

[Mr. D]

Hi everyone!

I just purchased a Ruger LCP. I love the way it shoots, it fits my hand well, and the overall quality, including fit and finish, seems to be great...

which is exactly what I would expect...

but apparently some people don't, and I curious why that is. First off, I will admit that I'm not exactly a Ruger expert. I own two Rugers, an LCP and a New Vaquero that was purchased back when they were doing the "case hardened" finish on the frame of the blued models. I've shot a Single Six quite a bit and a few different Mark IIs on several occasions, and I've handled an SP101, a GP100, a Security Six, a Mini-14, a 10/22 (older), and an M77 Hawkeye.

I often read comments about Ruger guns such as, "not very refined, but built like a tank" or, "kinda ugly, but Ruger tough." Some of the guns I've seen in person weren't the prettiest (i.e. the 10/22, Mini-14, Single Six) but they were about the same if not a bit better than your average Savage. However, the majority of Rugers I've handled were very nice looking and nice handling guns. The New Vaquero would be at the top of my list here, but right under that would be the M77, SP101, and the LCP. Would the M77 compare to a $2,000 custom bolt gun? No, of course not. But the fit and finish was still VERY nice and it handled so well. The SP101 might not compare with some of the classic Smiths or something like a Python for looks, but I would put it up against any modern Smith and many older ones as well any day of the week. And the New Vaquero is a beautiful revolver, IMHO.

So what do you think? Is the unrefined look and feel of Ruger guns a thing of the past? Have I just not seen, handled, and shot enough Ruger guns? Or is it one of those things that just keeps being circulated so it's in the back of people's minds when their handling a Ruger and it colors their perception.

By the way, the trigger on my LCP is great for a no-safety pocket pistol. MUCH better than the P3AT or P32.

~D

 

[carbonyl]

I believe most of the time they are referring to the P series. I have a P95 and it is built like a tank and I absolutely love it. I also own a SR9c and I think it looks as nice and refined as any pistol out there.

 

[jimbo555]

Snobs.

 

[Spats McGee]

Ruger has been known to make some ugly tanks, but I certainly wouldn't characterize all of their guns as such.

I apparently have an affinity for ugly tanks, though.

 

[Naybor]

I used to trade in guns and have owned many/most makes and models in my lifetime.

I'm now 68 and have sold off many of my handguns, only keeping those that have worked best. The only three left is a Ruger SP101, Ruger LCP, and a Ruger Mark III.
(Tell you anything?)

These three have been kept not due to price, prettiness, or any other reason except that they just work best. True, the SP101 and Mark III are made of highly polished Stainless Steel and I guess they could be considered beautiful with their rosewood grips. The LCP disappears in a pocket holster.

Don't feel bad about acquiring Rugers!!!! IMHO, the best bang for the buck.

 

[45_auto]

Rugers are heavier, clunkier, and more "tank" like because they generally use cast parts for their primary structure where other manufacturer's of more refined weapons use forged or machined bar stock. The cast mateial has lower ultimate and yield properties, so it has to be clunkier and more tank-like for equivelent strength to the forged or bar-stock parts. Ruger will use higher-strength parts where necessary for function or appearance. For example, the slide on the SR1911 is machined bar stock because of the load caused by the barrel locking lug cuts. A cast slide would have to look very tank-like (probably close to the size of a Highpoint slide) to be able to be strong enough to handle the loads. Apparently even Ruger draws the line somewhere!

 

[Prosser]

Cast frames, overbuilt to accept idiot loadings. They are sort of the muscle cars of revolvers, at least the older guns. With the power comes a bit of extra weight, and size. The tolerances aren't near a Freedom Arms. Don't know how they compare to BFR's tolerance wise.

They do seem to have some pretty sloppy spec designed guns. For instance the Single Six is barreled and cylindered for 22 Magnum, really, not 22lr, and the .226" cylinder is a bit wide open for .22lr.

Their .45 Colt guns have a history of oversized chambers and under sized throats.

 

[foghornl]

I have a P-90, and yeah it is on the chunky side....not quite twice as wide as my 1911-a1, but close.

Plusses: It goes "Bang!" on request every time, and puts the lead where you aim. Eats anything I have fed it, except for A-Merc ammo; even Wolf steel case went right through

 

[Trad Archer]

I love their SP101's, GP100's, and Redhawks.

I can't understand why they can't get the dimensions of the 45 colt straight.

I'm not a fan of their autos, but I'm not a big auto guy. I would however be interested in their 1911 if I actually found one.

 

[EddieNFL]

The 1911 and MK II/III Ruger autos are, IMO "ugly, but built like a tank."

Eddie the Snob

 

[harvester]

As far as revolvers go handle some older Colts and Smith and Wessons. Then pick up a Ruger and you may notice some more weight, size, and finishing differences. Rugers are tough and their size helps achieve that.

 

[firesky101]

Cast frames, overbuilt to accept idiot loadings. They are sort of the muscle cars of revolvers, at least the older guns. With the power comes a bit of extra weight, and size. The tolerances aren't near a Freedom Arms. Don't know how they compare to BFR's tolerance wise.

They do seem to have some pretty sloppy spec designed guns. For instance the Single Six is barreled and cylindered for 22 Magnum, really, not 22lr, and the .226" cylinder is a bit wide open for .22lr.

Their .45 Colt guns have a history of oversized chambers and under sized throats.

Have you been firing .22LR in a .22mag cylinder?

 

[Prosser]

No. The 22lr cylinder has .226" throats. A bit on the large side for accuracy.

 

[firesky101]

Ah now I see what you were saying, FWIW I have never shot a single six I would call inaccurate.

 

[Prosser]

Have you ever had an FA 83 that shoots .38" at 50 yards off a rest?
Problem is sometimes you can win. The FA cylinder is cut much tighter.
.2225 - .2235"

Can't get some ammo into that tight a cylinder. The Barrel is .217-.2175 bore / .2215 - .2222 grove".

My Single Six barrel is tight at .223"

No real reason the Single Six couldn't be made for .22 lr with a .223" cylinder
and a little tighter barrel. Compete with the 2200 dollar FA 83 for 500 bucks with tighter specs.

 

[45_auto]

Compete with the 2200 dollar FA 83 for 500 bucks with tighter specs

Unfortunately, holding those "tighter specs" would take tooling, procedures, inspections, and skills that would increase the price of a Single Six by a factor of 5. So you would be competing against the 2200 dollar FA 83 with your 2500 dollar Single Six.

 

[j1]

If "built like a tank" was not meant as a compliment it should be. I like it.

 

[loadedround]

Wait and see whose firearms will still be in use 100 years from now. I think the tanks will win!

 

[Lawdawg45]

I believe most of the time they are referring to the P series. I have a P95 and it is built like a tank and I absolutely love it. I also own a SR9c and I think it looks as nice and refined as any pistol out there.

^^ I agree. The P series are well built but bulky. I take the comment "built like tanks" as a compliment, as one who prefers hot rounds from Buffalo Bore, most of what I shoot would disassemble a Colt or Uberti clone. The new line, especially the SR9C and LC9 have slimmed down quite a bit.

LD

 

[robinkevin]

When was the last time you heard someone complain about how ugly a pistol was when it was pointed at them. A weapon is a tool, sure it's ok for a tool to look good but it doesn't have to. So long as it functions and does the job it's meant to do.

Personally I like a hammer with a nice looking wood handle it just feels right to me, some like newer models with metal or polymer handles and they can drive in a nail just as good.

 

[PabloJ]

I believe most of the time they are referring to the P series. I have a P95 and it is built like a tank and I absolutely love it. I also own a SR9c and I think it looks as nice and refined as any pistol out there.

The P series Rugers are solid duty type pistols and make wonderful "range toys". Viable alternative is Polish Mag-98 from Buds (via Century Arms) for $322 plus transfer fees. The Ruger has advantage of easily obtainable parts. Thank Lordie for second-hand metal-framed third generation S&W pistols not wanted by most......Oh YEH!

 

[Creature]

Ugly is as ugly does.

 

[BBQLS1]

Their P series autoloaders are big and bulky.

Their revolvers historically have been overbuilt so jim-bob can fill that casing up with the hottest powder he could find (even though they say not to use reloads in the manual). And they aren't as elegant as a S&W or Colt (well at least not the older ones).

I like Rugers fine though. They fill a nich of the market that nobody else was and managed to overlap what the others were doing.

 

[Prosser]

Elegant?

I like to think of them as tanks. I remember shooting a 105MM cannon from an Abrams at Hunter Liget in the 80's. I have NEVER experienced anything even close to that in a firearm. Well maybe the 150's, but those were a long way away from us on the line.

The Ruger I have is a .500 Max.




There is a beauty in it's rugged functionality, just like an Abrams tank.

 

[XD 45acp]

I own a Springfield XD Service. Now to me, this thing is as ugly as a fat plumber's butt crack. She's been the BEST pistol I've ever owned and I'd trust it anytime, anywhere and would not trade it for nothing. So, looks ain't always everything....